Dear Moffers,
I agree with Tor: there's a lot of confusion in perception of what's "art".
A lot of people mix up technique and art, so they think you are an artist
when you paint. Talking about some light singer I don't like I often
sentence: "He's not a Singer, he a singing man. There's a difference!". I
think this is the Tor feeling: he is painting, but it doesn't mean he is a
Painter.
Surely this split is a DQ/SQ split, caused by the SOMist difficulty of
seeing the value of our creations.
My attempt to classify art and technology in MOQ levels found some of you in
agreement and I'm glad for it. But as Bo pointed out everything can carry
various kind of values:
"A painting is matter to the inorganic level. To the biological level it is
of no value - as a painting - and to the social level it is value if it
lends status to the owner. Only at the intellectual level does the
"artistic" quality appear. A human being is ALL levels and may look at the
proverbial painting from all points of view dependent where focus is. If
freezing to death Leonardo's Mona Lisa is valuable as fuel for a fire that
may save one's biological self. "
I agree. We never have to fall in the SOMist trap of defining definitively
something. The value of Leo's Monna Lisa is not an objective property of
that picture. Quality is an event, and the Q Event that values a picture (or
a car, or a ritual, or an operating system) is "composed" by an infinite mix
of previous events stratified in billion of years.
In this sense, my opinion about Linux must be a little completed: I talked
with a lot of Linux users and the most are enthusiast about it. I tried to
understand what's behind their attitude and I found they are carrying a
message: "We are free from Micro$oft, we are free from the giant!". This
message is very strong and sometimes it seems to be more important than the
effective functionality of that operating system. Even if Linus Torvalds
had
invented it with a technological (social) purpose, his creation today is
also "Art" as it's used with an intellectual meaning. Maybe he "encountered"
DQ without an effective consciousness of what he was going to create.
In my past posts I focused only on the creation of something, defining "rt"
as "activity of cReaTion". But "rt" is also "RiTual" , that is the continual
activity of carrying on the original values of what you are doing or using,
while enriching it with your personal values . DMB writes:"Preserve and
transcend, preserve and transcend, over and over again. Understand the ideas
behind what you're doing, master the static patterns, and then you can
create something new." Great!
Creating (or changing) something is in conclusion taking a little of DQ and
"storing" it in static patterns. If not, you are not creating, you're just
copying. But attention! We don't have a new Leonardo every day and it's
important also to preserve the techniques and the memories of our past, so a
new Leonardo will be able to start from the point where the former one
arrived. That's the importance of craftsmanship and rituals.
Going back to the original questions, I found very interesting the Xcto's
assertion:
"3) How can technology evolve everyday faster (in moqist terms: what is its
dynamic aspect, its meaning?)
Since ideas (hypotheses) are nearly infinite, the geometric progression of
human population create a geometric progression of ideas. Technology is the
social expression of scientific ideas and they grow with the population.
The
dynamic aspect is to create greater detail of scientific knowledge. As a
social level phenomenon, it's first precept is to continue itself as a
phenomenon. *Woody's Maxim: Any social institution's primary purpose is to
ensure the survival of the social institution.* "
I want to add that even if we are entering the fourth level of evolution, we
didn't solve completely the social main problem to get rid from biological.
Sadly we will die, so we need our technology in the desperate battle against
this fact.
And finally again about the divorce question I agree with Andrew that
"concerning the art, science and religion triumvirate, they all have the
goal of finding 'peace of mind' as an outcome". As human activities Art and
Technology and Religion are not completely separated , they all belong to
the "rt" family. They are similar and they are seeking the good and the
peace of mind. But they are different in the kind of that good, just like
different are the minds and the needs and the ideas of people searching for
peace. So I don't know how to call this separation: divorce, divergence,
difference.... however in this sense I think it's definitive and moral.
Remaining in a "family" concern maybe it's not like a divorce, I think it's
like the separation of brothers when they become adult.
tks.
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST